NVDA - Real numbers about the companies health

V

vengence

Level capped
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
18,469
For those of you who don't know Nvidia's conference call is today. As such, they released their financial numbers. Here they are:

Code: 
                           Quarterly Highlights     Fiscal Year Highlights
($ in millions except
 per share data)     Q4 FY2010  Q3 FY2010  Q4 FY2009    FY2010     FY2009

Revenue                $982.5     $903.2     $481.1     $3,326     $3,425
                     =========  =========  =========  =========  =========
GAAP:
Gross margin            44.7%      43.4%      29.4%      35.4%      34.3%
Net income (loss)      $131.1     $107.6    ($147.7)   ($68.0)    ($30.0)
Income (loss) per
 share                  $0.23      $0.19     ($0.27)   ($0.12)    ($0.05)
Non-GAAP: (1)
Gross margin            44.7%      40.7%      28.1%      38.6%      39.9%
Net income (loss)      $131.1      $77.4    ($145.3)    $141.4     $160.3
Income (loss) per
 share                  $0.23      $0.13     ($0.27)     $0.26      $0.29
                     =========  =========  =========  =========  =========

So let this be the /thread to the Nvidia is dying/dead/rotting corpse posts. They increased revenue and gross margin while AMD/ATI was launching the 5XXX series.
 
i must not be a financial person but doesn' t the FY2009 (0.05) mean it was a 5cent loss per share for FY2009 while the FY2010 (0.12) means it was a 12cent loss per share for the FY2010?


and how are they reporting FY2010 Q3 and Q4 numbers? doesn't the Q3 and Q4 of FY2010 start in April and End in October 2010?
 
H-street said:
i must not be a financial person but doesn' t the FY2009 (0.05) mean it was a 5cent loss per share for FY2009 while the FY2010 (0.12) means it was a 12cent loss per share for the FY2010?
Click to expand...

Yep. The gains in the second half of the year didn't offset earlier losses.

and how are they reporting FY2010 Q3 and Q4 numbers? doesn't the Q3 and Q4 of FY2010 start in April and End in October 2010?
Click to expand...

Nvidia's FY2010 ended in January 2010.
 
Share prices that they project are just for operating losses, it doesnt reflect the overall gains or losses that the stock may experiance.

Just doing a quick google search on NVDA

17.84 +0.17‎ (0.96%‎) 17 Feb 4:00pm ET
17.13‎ -0.71‎ (-3.98%‎) After Hours

Was up .17 cents for the day, then after hours it dropped .71 cents. Kind of odd, most exstablished companies with bad news release it after hours on Friday. 4% in a day is kind of a big hit, most likely related to the financials they released.

/Speculation
Maybe there is something they are sitting on for after hours Friday
 
Sikkyu said:
Share prices that they project are just for operating losses, it doesnt reflect the overall gains or losses that the stock may experiance.

Just doing a quick google search on NVDA

17.84 +0.17‎ (0.96%‎) 17 Feb 4:00pm ET
17.13‎ -0.71‎ (-3.98%‎) After Hours

Was up .17 cents for the day, then after hours it dropped .71 cents. Kind of odd, most exstablished companies with bad news release it after hours on Friday. 4% in a day is kind of a big hit, most likely related to the financials they released.

/Speculation
Maybe there is something they are sitting on for after hours Friday
Click to expand...
Not really, it's a company with a beta of 1.8 (meaning it is 1.8 times as volitale as the nasdaq). Even at 17.13 it is 238% of it's 52 week low. It's also well above what it was trading at for the last month before this week.

History is important when looking at stock numbers. For example 1 quarter ago the stock was trading at 13.73.
 
IIRC GAAP=Generally Accepted Accounting Practice
So without displaying the (1) following the Non-GAAP (Non-Generally Accepted Accounting Practices) I can't comment on those. But on the GAAP numbers...

FY2009 Revenue of $3,425 > FY2010 $3,326

So how do you infer they increased revenue when it looks like a 3% decline in Revenue to me? The Gross Margin increased from 34.3% to 35.4% which would lead to greater profit but not revenue, yet they still posted a yearly loss of $68,000,000 which is more than double the $30,000,000 FY2009 losses.

So according to Generally Accepted Accounting Practices I would have to say they aren't doing so hot overall with nearly $100,000,000 in losses for FY 2009 and 2010 combined.
 
Last edited:
Well for what its worth, Jensen said he wouldn't go into detail about Fermi during the conference call, and reiterated what he said at CES, which was that Fermi is in "mass production". I'm not sure what that means anymore...

He also said that 40 nm supply will be constrained for at least the first half of this year and unknown for the second half of this year...

The stock is tanking in after hours...

vengence said:
So let this be the /thread to the Nvidia is dying/dead/rotting corpse posts. They increased revenue and gross margin while AMD/ATI was launching the 5XXX series.
Click to expand...

Because majority of gpu sales was not DX11 in Q4. But make no mistake, the impact of nVidia not having a DX11 gpu won't be seen until Q2 or Q3 of this year...
 
JayteeBates said:
So according to Generally Accepted Accounting Practices I would have to say they aren't doing so hot overall with nearly $100,000,000 in losses for FY 2009 and 2010 combined.
Click to expand...

That's because you're using one time charges (included in GAAP) to draw a conclusion about the general financial state of the company. There is a reason non-GAAP numbers are reported as well - they don't include extraordinary charges that don't impact the overall operational efficiency of the firm.

JYH said:
Because majority of gpu sales was not DX11 in Q4. But make no mistake, the impact of nVidia not having a DX11 gpu won't be seen until Q2 or Q3 of this year...
Click to expand...

Probably. But that's contingent on whether or not AMD is also hurting from tight 40nm supply.
 
That's because you're using one time charges (included in GAAP) to draw a conclusion about the general financial state of the company. There is a reason non-GAAP numbers are reported as well - they don't include extraordinary charges that don't impact the overall operational efficiency of the firm.
Click to expand...

The OP did not clarify what the (1) on the Non-GAAP meant so I couldn't comment. So what did the extraordinary one time charges come to and was it only in 2010 - remember they lost $30,000,000 in FY09.

Even according to the Non-GAAP numbers they had lower net income going from FY09 $160.3 to FY10 $141.4, a 12% decrease, while Gross Margin decreased from 39.9% to 38.6%. Not signs of a dying company but certainly not one in a massive growth period, more like stagnation.

So it appears to me that until NV produces a winner with Fermi or other new product, the green team is going to stagnate or lose ground.
 
JayteeBates said:
The OP did not clarify what the (1) on the Non-GAAP meant so I couldn't comment. So what did the extraordinary one time charges come to and was it only in 2010 - remember they lost $30,000,000 in FY09.

Even according to the Non-GAAP numbers they had lower net income going from FY09 $160.3 to FY10 $141.4, a 12% decrease, while Gross Margin decreased from 39.9% to 38.6%. Not signs of a dying company but certainly not one in a massive growth period, more like stagnation.

So it appears to me that until NV produces a winner with Fermi or other new product, the green team is going to stagnate or lose ground.
Click to expand...

Who the hell said they were going on a massive growth period? I said they weren't dying. And of course by stagnate, I assume you mean show growth quarter to quarter over the last 2 quarters? :rolleyes:
 
trinibwoy said:
Probably. But that's contingent on whether or not AMD is also hurting from tight 40nm supply.
Click to expand...

They are (at least in Q4). From AMD's latest conference call, Dirk Meyer said something similar to Jensen, that they lost revenue because of the 40 nm supply constraints. Meyer also said that majority of their Q4 revenue from gpu sales was non DX11 cards (which makes sense because majority of the revenue comes from mainstream parts, and they didn't have a mainstream DX11 card in Q4). But its more about the speed of the adoption process and that Fermi's mainstream derivatives won't be seen in a while. Those are the reasons why you won't see the impact until later...
 
Last edited:
I highly doubt nVidia is dying, its like saying Intel is dying...

if nVidia is really dying, ATi is the one who will jump into the pool first..

anyway, the data did shows a bit loses, but that shouldn't affect anything with that small percent..
 
I said they weren't dying.
Click to expand...

I agreed with you simply intending that while they aren't growing they certainly aren't dying.

And of course by stagnate, I assume you mean show growth quarter to quarter over the last 2 quarters?
Click to expand...

No I mean flat to negative net income for consecutive years by their Non-GAAP numbers.

However one very interesting point, which I think is the strongest for NV, is the Q409 vs Q410 revenue numbers which shows a growth of 501.4. That growth by itself is greater than the Q409 total.
 
why don't you look at the bigger picture? Nvidia isn't the only company bleeding red, there are countless thousands out there. Until we get better news of the world's financial health, any corporation is fair game for bankruptcy. Besides they are doing very well compared to the pre-crash levels. If anything they are in a position to do some acquisitions.
 
trinibwoy said:
Probably. But that's contingent on whether or not AMD is also hurting from tight 40nm supply.
Click to expand...

At this point I don't know a single person that wanted a 5870 or 5970 that couldn't buy one due to them not being available. Sure some had to hunt for their cards at the beginning but they all eventually got one.
 
transcript of the CC:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/189...10-earnings-call-transcript?page=-1&find=nvda

Lots of good info.

We are very excited about Q1. Fermi is in production, and we plan to launch many new GPU products in the coming months, but we will save the details for later.
Because Q2 is going to be the quarter when Fermi is hitting the pull stride, and it won’t just be one Fermi product, there will be a couple of Fermi products to span many different price ranges...

NVDA and ATI have both survived past the "dying because their video product of the moment sucks" stage. ATI through the buyout, NVDA by branching off into mobile devices and CUDA. Their main competition now is Intel, which is why bad news for Intel always sends both their stock prices soaring. As for NVDA the stock, it was overbought going into earnings. It could close at 17 tomorrow and still be sitting at the moving average. Since they didnt blow numbers out of the water, thats likely.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top